color safe

Discussion in 'HTML' started by News, Apr 19, 2006.

  1. News

    News Guest

    Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be rendered on
    the internet?

    If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?

    Will the colors in an image be altered if the colors are not the correct
    hue?

    Thanks

    --

    Totus possum, totum Deum.
    Totus ero, totum meum.
    WSW
    News, Apr 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. News wrote:
    > Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be rendered on
    > the internet?
    >
    > If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?
    >
    > Will the colors in an image be altered if the colors are not the correct
    > hue?


    Maybe back it the days of 8-bit video cards, however you have no control
    over whether your visitors have their monitor's adjusted properly and
    color calibrated.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Apr 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. News

    Jim Higson Guest

    News wrote:

    > Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be rendered
    > on the internet?
    >
    > If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?
    >
    > Will the colors in an image be altered if the colors are not the correct
    > hue?


    There is a semi-official 'web safe' palette, but these days pretty much all
    palettes are web safe so I wouldn't bother. Besides, the few computers that
    still reduce the colours won't look all *that* bad.

    If you're talking about exact colour rendering (Pantones etc), there's no
    way to get them right, but the PNG format helps a bit because you can store
    gamma information (although I'm not sure which browsers will use it, and
    anyway most users won't have their browsers set up for it).

    I tend to just get the images looking right on a monitor set up for sRGB,
    and hope they don't vary too much in the wild.

    --
    Jim
    Jim Higson, Apr 19, 2006
    #3
  4. News

    News Guest

    "Jim Higson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > News wrote:
    >
    >> Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be rendered
    >> on the internet?
    >>
    >> If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?
    >>
    >> Will the colors in an image be altered if the colors are not the correct
    >> hue?

    >
    > There is a semi-official 'web safe' palette, but these days pretty much
    > all
    > palettes are web safe so I wouldn't bother. Besides, the few computers
    > that
    > still reduce the colours won't look all *that* bad.
    >
    > If you're talking about exact colour rendering (Pantones etc), there's no
    > way to get them right, but the PNG format helps a bit because you can
    > store
    > gamma information (although I'm not sure which browsers will use it, and
    > anyway most users won't have their browsers set up for it).
    >
    > I tend to just get the images looking right on a monitor set up for sRGB,
    > and hope they don't vary too much in the wild.
    >
    > --
    > Jim


    Thanks

    --

    Totus possum, totum Deum.
    Totus ero, totum meum.
    WSW
    News, Apr 19, 2006
    #4
  5. News

    News Guest

    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    news:444654a2$0$3685$...
    > News wrote:
    >> Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be rendered
    >> on the internet?
    >>
    >> If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?
    >>
    >> Will the colors in an image be altered if the colors are not the correct
    >> hue?

    >
    > Maybe back it the days of 8-bit video cards, however you have no control
    > over whether your visitors have their monitor's adjusted properly and
    > color calibrated.
    >
    > --
    > Take care,
    >
    > Jonathan
    > -------------------
    > LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    > http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com


    Thanks



    --

    Totus possum, totum Deum.
    Totus ero, totum meum.
    WSW
    News, Apr 19, 2006
    #5
  6. News

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    News wrote:
    > Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be rendered on
    > the internet?
    >
    > If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?
    >
    > Will the colors in an image be altered if the colors are not the correct
    > hue?


    At one time only a limited number of colors could be rendered the same
    by the then current, but now ancient, browsers. However all of the most
    popular recent browsers are capable of rendering millions of colors
    properly. One exception is for a few of the old WebTV(now MSNTV) boxes,
    with their bowser browsers, still in use, which have only 8-bit color
    depth, but the newer MSNTV boxes use a watered down IE6 browser and
    render color the same as a normal IE6 browser.

    Just because the browser is capable of millions of colors does not mean
    that all image formats can use all of these. For example, the gif
    allows only a very limited range of colors, making it best for
    animations, poster-like images, etc. However the jpg and png can handle
    a full color range. Thus for accurate colors for photographs, a gif
    should be avoided.
    cwdjrxyz, Apr 19, 2006
    #6
  7. News

    News Guest

    "cwdjrxyz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > News wrote:
    >> Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be rendered
    >> on
    >> the internet?
    >>
    >> If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?
    >>
    >> Will the colors in an image be altered if the colors are not the correct
    >> hue?

    >
    > At one time only a limited number of colors could be rendered the same
    > by the then current, but now ancient, browsers. However all of the most
    > popular recent browsers are capable of rendering millions of colors
    > properly. One exception is for a few of the old WebTV(now MSNTV) boxes,
    > with their bowser browsers, still in use, which have only 8-bit color
    > depth, but the newer MSNTV boxes use a watered down IE6 browser and
    > render color the same as a normal IE6 browser.
    >
    > Just because the browser is capable of millions of colors does not mean
    > that all image formats can use all of these. For example, the gif
    > allows only a very limited range of colors, making it best for
    > animations, poster-like images, etc. However the jpg and png can handle
    > a full color range. Thus for accurate colors for photographs, a gif
    > should be avoided.
    >


    Grief there is so much to learn, thanks for this information.

    --

    Totus possum, totum Deum.
    Totus ero, totum meum.
    WSW
    News, Apr 19, 2006
    #7
  8. News

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "News"
    <warren@no_S_P_A_M_wyght.com> vouchsafed:

    > Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be
    > rendered on the internet?


    Yep. I think it's around 16,777,216.

    > If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?


    A search engine like Google. I dunno, maybe the string "color depth" might
    work.

    > Will the colors in an image be altered if the colors are not the
    > correct hue?


    If a part of the system is incapable of displaying the image's color
    spectrum, yes.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity can have limits.
    Neredbojias, Apr 19, 2006
    #8
  9. News

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Jim Higson wrote:

    > If you're talking about exact colour rendering (Pantones etc), there's no
    > way to get them right, but the PNG format helps a bit because you can store
    > gamma information (although I'm not sure which browsers will use it, and
    > anyway most users won't have their browsers set up for it).


    Gamma is supported by any vaguely recent Gecko browser, Opera and IE/mac
    (as well as a handful of other minor browsers -- Amaya and Dillo spring to
    mind).

    More important is what's missing though: IE/win, Safari and Konqueror.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Apr 19, 2006
    #9
  10. News

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 19 Apr 2006 10:05:02 -0700, "cwdjrxyz" <> wrote:

    >Thus for accurate colors for photographs, a gif
    >should be avoided.


    GIF should be avoided for "overall accurate rendering". However if you
    want to match a logo and a CSS colour so that one bleeds cleanly into
    another, then use a pallette-based image format like GIF or PNG,
    definitely not JPG. JPG offers lots of colours with good shading, but
    it's lossy compression so they're all a little approximate. If it's a
    question of matching solid colour blocks of one shade, then JPG is a bad
    choice.
    Andy Dingley, Apr 20, 2006
    #10
  11. News

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On 19 Apr 2006 10:05:02 -0700, "cwdjrxyz" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Thus for accurate colors for photographs, a gif
    >> should be avoided.

    >
    > GIF should be avoided for "overall accurate rendering". However if you
    > want to match a logo and a CSS colour so that one bleeds cleanly into
    > another, then use a pallette-based image format like GIF or PNG,
    > definitely not JPG. JPG offers lots of colours with good shading, but
    > it's lossy compression so they're all a little approximate. If it's a
    > question of matching solid colour blocks of one shade, then JPG is a
    > bad choice.


    In fact, if you need to colour match an image with a CSS colour, use GIF
    whenever possible over PNG, as the gamma correction in PNG will cause a
    mismatch in some browsers:
    Nik Coughlin, Apr 20, 2006
    #11
  12. News

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    Nik Coughlin wrote:
    > Andy Dingley wrote:
    >> On 19 Apr 2006 10:05:02 -0700, "cwdjrxyz" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Thus for accurate colors for photographs, a gif
    >>> should be avoided.

    >>
    >> GIF should be avoided for "overall accurate rendering". However if
    >> you want to match a logo and a CSS colour so that one bleeds cleanly
    >> into another, then use a pallette-based image format like GIF or PNG,
    >> definitely not JPG. JPG offers lots of colours with good shading,
    >> but it's lossy compression so they're all a little approximate. If
    >> it's a question of matching solid colour blocks of one shade, then
    >> JPG is a bad choice.

    >
    > In fact, if you need to colour match an image with a CSS colour, use
    > GIF whenever possible over PNG, as the gamma correction in PNG will
    > cause a mismatch in some browsers:


    Whoops:
    http://hsivonen.iki.fi/png-gamma/
    Nik Coughlin, Apr 20, 2006
    #12
  13. News

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > Jim Higson wrote:
    >
    > > If you're talking about exact colour rendering (Pantones etc), there's no
    > > way to get them right, but the PNG format helps a bit because you can store
    > > gamma information (although I'm not sure which browsers will use it, and
    > > anyway most users won't have their browsers set up for it).

    >
    > Gamma is supported by any vaguely recent Gecko browser, Opera and IE/mac
    > (as well as a handful of other minor browsers -- Amaya and Dillo spring to
    > mind).
    >
    > More important is what's missing though: IE/win, Safari and Konqueror.


    We have been talking about color rendition with the assumption that the
    monitor or TV screen is capable of and set for perfect color rendition.
    However I have seen cases when the adjustments of the monitor are very
    far off. You become used to poor color rendition, if not too extreme,
    very easily. To accurately set the monitor you need a test DVD such as
    is used to set up home theatre. It not only allows adjustment of the
    images, but also the audio for multi-channel set ups. The very best
    adjustment may require instruments, but many test DVDs come with
    filters for your eyes and other devices to make very good adjustment
    possible.

    Lacking a test DVD, the color bars and test screens broadcast by TV
    stations can be helpful, but they are seldom on anymore where I live,
    and they will not help for your computer unless you have a TV tuner in
    the computer.

    I have an old monitor adjustment page at
    http://www.cwdjr.net/tool/a_color_bars.html that still gets a few hits
    despite the age of it. I strongly suggest using the mentioned DVD home
    theatre set up test discs, but the color bars and other tests on my
    page are better than nothing.

    Not all monitors or TVs have all of the adjustments needed for best
    reproduction on the screen. Home theatre projectors tend to have more
    adjustments than most other formats. However, on smaller TVs, there
    often are many additional adjustments on a hidden menu. The key to
    bringing up this menu usually is not provided to buyers of the TV,
    because using some of the hidden adjustments require instruments, and
    one can easly greatly distort the image or even damage the TV. My
    computer monitor has more adjustments than a typical small TV, but not
    as many as most TV projectors. I do not think it has any hidden menus,
    but who knows for sure.
    cwdjrxyz, Apr 20, 2006
    #13
  14. News

    News Guest

    Neredbojias wrote:
    > To further the education of mankind, "News"
    > <warren@no_S_P_A_M_wyght.com> vouchsafed:
    >
    >> Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be
    >> rendered on the internet?

    >
    > Yep. I think it's around 16,777,216.


    Grief is that all, there is no way I will be able to make my site work now.
    ;-)

    >
    >> If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?

    >
    > A search engine like Google. I dunno, maybe the string "color depth"
    > might work.


    No kidding? I did that and found heaps of sites that said it is STILL valid
    and others that said it is obsolete. I am not a caveman and don't think just
    because it is painted on the wall it must be true

    >
    >> Will the colors in an image be altered if the colors are not the
    >> correct hue?

    >
    > If a part of the system is incapable of displaying the image's color
    > spectrum, yes.


    Thanks

    --

    Totus possum, totum Deum.
    Totus ero, totum meum.
    WSW
    News, Apr 20, 2006
    #14
  15. News

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, "News"
    <warren@no_S_P_A_M_wyght.com> vouchsafed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >> To further the education of mankind, "News"
    >> <warren@no_S_P_A_M_wyght.com> vouchsafed:
    >>
    >>> Is it true that there is a limited number of colors that can be
    >>> rendered on the internet?

    >>
    >> Yep. I think it's around 16,777,216.

    >
    > Grief is that all, there is no way I will be able to make my site work
    > now. ;-)
    >
    >>
    >>> If this is true, where can I go to learn about it?

    >>
    >> A search engine like Google. I dunno, maybe the string "color depth"
    >> might work.

    >
    > No kidding? I did that and found heaps of sites that said it is STILL
    > valid and others that said it is obsolete. I am not a caveman and
    > don't think just because it is painted on the wall it must be true


    I was a caveman once but they threw me in the hoosegow 'cause my loin cloth
    didn't meet community standards.

    Anyhow, I suppose everyone has an opinion, but the fact is that "web-safe
    colors" is term that is now mostly passe. Most computers, monitors,
    browsers, et al can display each one of the 16+ million colors just fine.
    Devices that possibly can't, such as those phone-things or whatever,
    probably have an algorthm which transduces colors satisfactorily.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
    Neredbojias, Apr 20, 2006
    #15
  16. Neredbojias wrote:

    > I was a caveman once but they threw me in the hoosegow 'cause my loin
    > cloth didn't meet community standards.


    More loin than cloth, eh? :)


    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 20, 2006
    #16
  17. News

    Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > However I have seen cases when the adjustments of the monitor are very
    > far off. You become used to poor color rendition, if not too extreme,
    > very easily.


    I can vouch for that, being partially colour-blind!

    Not that I ever particularly wanted to get a job on the railways or as
    a fighter pilot, but it would've been nice to have had the option...


    --
    AGw.
    , Apr 20, 2006
    #17
  18. News

    Guest

    News wrote:
    > No kidding? I did that and found heaps of sites that said it is STILL valid
    > and others that said it is obsolete. I am not a caveman and don't think just
    > because it is painted on the wall it must be true


    A useful attitude to have, particularly when using Google to find
    discussions of best web practice. It's amazing how long some pages
    stay up!

    Regarding "web-safe colours":
    It's mainly used to refer to a palette of 216 colours that were
    rendered identically on both Microsoft Windows and Apple systems, and
    in both Netscape Navigator (remember that?!) and Internet Explorer.
    This was back when many or most people had lower-resolution monitors
    with a lesser colour depth, of course; not to mention the annoying
    practice amongst OEMs of selling customers monitors capable of a higher
    resolution but which left the factory set at a lower one.

    Anyhoo, since even mobile 'phones can usually handle millions of
    colours, it's a historical curiosity in most cases. Gamma and whatever
    else might mean that the millions of colours that I see aren't exactly
    the same as the ones that you do, but unless you're developing a
    website for a paint manufacturer it's largely going to be a technical
    irrelevancy. IMHO, YMMV, etc.


    --
    AGw.
    , Apr 20, 2006
    #18
  19. News

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, Blinky the Shark <>
    vouchsafed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >
    >> I was a caveman once but they threw me in the hoosegow 'cause my loin
    >> cloth didn't meet community standards.

    >
    > More loin than cloth, eh? :)


    Well, to be frank, it wasn't the loin that was the problem.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
    Neredbojias, Apr 20, 2006
    #19
  20. Neredbojias wrote:

    > To further the education of mankind, Blinky the Shark
    > <> vouchsafed:
    >
    >> Neredbojias wrote:
    >>
    >>> I was a caveman once but they threw me in the hoosegow 'cause my loin
    >>> cloth didn't meet community standards.

    >>
    >> More loin than cloth, eh? :)

    >
    > Well, to be frank, it wasn't the loin that was the problem.


    No GIF! No GIF! :)

    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients
    Blinky the Shark, Apr 20, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gabriel Rossetti
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,312
    Gabriel Rossetti
    Aug 29, 2008
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    333
    Brian Candler
    Aug 12, 2003
  3. Aredridel

    Not just $SAFE, but damn $SAFE

    Aredridel, Sep 2, 2004, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    238
  4. Farrel Lifson

    $SAFE =4 safe enough?

    Farrel Lifson, Aug 29, 2006, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    100
    Eric Hodel
    Aug 31, 2006
  5. Kamaljeet Saini
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
    Kamaljeet Saini
    Feb 13, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page